First, regarding the Roeder trial fiasco (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35162547/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts), let's PLEASE make sure that, as Christians, we denounce such radical tactics as contrary to the Spirit of Christ. Jesus does not condone abortion, but he does not condone killing abortionists either. I don't care how angry you are, you are not following Jesus when you commit murder. It's frustrating, but no one said being a Christian in a world that doesn't believe is going to be easy. Compassion, not retaliation, is the way of Christ. This does not mean we have to sit by and pretend it's not a tragedy that so many babies die. We just have to learn to respond differently, in a more meaningful way. Otherwise it will just escalate into an even worse situation.
Second, and on a MUCH lighter note:
Can I just say that the movie "2012" is pretty much one of the dumbest, most ridiculous films ever? Yeah, it was entertaining, but come on -- if the world really does end in 2012, let's hope it's not as cheesy as this film makes it out to be!
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Brueggemann on the imagination necessary for Scriptural interpretation...
"Responsible interpretation requires imagination. I understand that imagination makes serious Calvinists nervous because it smacks of the subjective freedom to carry the text in undeveloped directions and to engage in fantasy. But I would insist that imagination is in any case inevitable in any interpretive process that is more than simple reiteration, and that faithful imagination is characteristically not autonomous fantasy but good-faith extrapolation...
[I]magination is the hosting of 'otherwise', and I submit that every teacher or preacher invites people to an 'otherwise' beyond the evident. Without that we have nothing to say. We must take risks and act daringly to push beyond what is known to that which is hoped for and trusted but not yet in hand.
Interpretation is not the reiteration of the text but, rather, the movement of the text beyond itself in fresh, often formerly unuttered ways. Jesus' parables are a prime example. They open the listening community to possible futures. Beyond parabolic teaching, however, there was in ancient Israel and in the early church an observant wonder.
As eyewitnesses created texts out of observed and remembered miracles, texted miracles in turn become materials for imagination that pushed well beyond what was given or intended even in the text. This is an inescapable process for those of us who insist that the Bible is a contemporary word to us. We transport ourselves out of the 21st century back to the ancient world of the text or, conversely, we transpose ancient voices into contemporary voices of authority.
Surely Paul was not thinking of the crisis over 16th-century indulgences when he wrote about 'faith alone.' Surely Isaiah was not thinking of Martin Luther King's dream of a 'new earth.' Yet we make such leaps all the time. What a huge leap to imagine that the primal commission to 'till and keep the earth' (Gen. 2:15) is about environmental issues and the chemicals used by Iowa farmers. Yet we make it. What a huge leap to imagine that the ancient provision for Jubilee in Leviticus 25 has anything to do with the cancellation of Third World debt or with an implied critique of global capitalism. Yet we make it...
We are all committed to the high practice of subjective extrapolations because we have figured out that a cold, reiterative objectivity has no missional energy or moral force. We do it, and we will not stop doing it. It is, however, surely healing and humbling for us to have enough self-knowledge to concede that what we are doing will not carry the freight of absoluteness."
(from the article "Biblical Authority" in The Christian Century; italics mine)
[I]magination is the hosting of 'otherwise', and I submit that every teacher or preacher invites people to an 'otherwise' beyond the evident. Without that we have nothing to say. We must take risks and act daringly to push beyond what is known to that which is hoped for and trusted but not yet in hand.
Interpretation is not the reiteration of the text but, rather, the movement of the text beyond itself in fresh, often formerly unuttered ways. Jesus' parables are a prime example. They open the listening community to possible futures. Beyond parabolic teaching, however, there was in ancient Israel and in the early church an observant wonder.
As eyewitnesses created texts out of observed and remembered miracles, texted miracles in turn become materials for imagination that pushed well beyond what was given or intended even in the text. This is an inescapable process for those of us who insist that the Bible is a contemporary word to us. We transport ourselves out of the 21st century back to the ancient world of the text or, conversely, we transpose ancient voices into contemporary voices of authority.
Surely Paul was not thinking of the crisis over 16th-century indulgences when he wrote about 'faith alone.' Surely Isaiah was not thinking of Martin Luther King's dream of a 'new earth.' Yet we make such leaps all the time. What a huge leap to imagine that the primal commission to 'till and keep the earth' (Gen. 2:15) is about environmental issues and the chemicals used by Iowa farmers. Yet we make it. What a huge leap to imagine that the ancient provision for Jubilee in Leviticus 25 has anything to do with the cancellation of Third World debt or with an implied critique of global capitalism. Yet we make it...
We are all committed to the high practice of subjective extrapolations because we have figured out that a cold, reiterative objectivity has no missional energy or moral force. We do it, and we will not stop doing it. It is, however, surely healing and humbling for us to have enough self-knowledge to concede that what we are doing will not carry the freight of absoluteness."
(from the article "Biblical Authority" in The Christian Century; italics mine)
Monday, January 25, 2010
Ernest Becker on psychoanalysis and the sacred...
(from "The Denial of Death" - a GREAT book!)
"If history is a succession of immortality ideologies, then the problems of men [n.b.: and women!] can be read directly against those ideologies - how embracing they are, how convincing, how easy they make it for men to be confident and secure...
It begins to look as though modern man cannot find his heroism in everyday life any more, as men did in traditional societies just by doing their daily duties... That is the price modern man pays for the eclipse of the sacred dimension. When he dethroned the ideas of soul and God he was thrown back hopelessly on his own resources, on himself and those few around him...
When you narrow down the soul to the self, and the self to the early conditioning of the child, what do you have left? You have the individual man, and you are stuck with him.
All the analysis in the world doesn't allow the person to find out who he is and why he is here on earth, why he has to die, and how he can make his life a triumph. It is when psychology pretends to do this... that it becomes a fraud that makes the situation of modern man an impasse from which he cannot escape...
Modern man started looking inward in the 19th century* because he hoped to find immortality in a new and secure way. He wanted heroic apotheosis as did all other men - but now there is no one to give it to him except his psychological guru. He created his own impasse."
*It is interesting to note that this inward turn to the individual (in psychology) is an echo of the earlier philosophical turn to the individual inner self that was most clearly delineated by Descartes nearly four centuries earlier. We can see just how much pressure the modern subjective self continued to exert throughout the modern period, and that continues even today, in our "postmodern" culture.
"If history is a succession of immortality ideologies, then the problems of men [n.b.: and women!] can be read directly against those ideologies - how embracing they are, how convincing, how easy they make it for men to be confident and secure...
It begins to look as though modern man cannot find his heroism in everyday life any more, as men did in traditional societies just by doing their daily duties... That is the price modern man pays for the eclipse of the sacred dimension. When he dethroned the ideas of soul and God he was thrown back hopelessly on his own resources, on himself and those few around him...
When you narrow down the soul to the self, and the self to the early conditioning of the child, what do you have left? You have the individual man, and you are stuck with him.
All the analysis in the world doesn't allow the person to find out who he is and why he is here on earth, why he has to die, and how he can make his life a triumph. It is when psychology pretends to do this... that it becomes a fraud that makes the situation of modern man an impasse from which he cannot escape...
Modern man started looking inward in the 19th century* because he hoped to find immortality in a new and secure way. He wanted heroic apotheosis as did all other men - but now there is no one to give it to him except his psychological guru. He created his own impasse."
*It is interesting to note that this inward turn to the individual (in psychology) is an echo of the earlier philosophical turn to the individual inner self that was most clearly delineated by Descartes nearly four centuries earlier. We can see just how much pressure the modern subjective self continued to exert throughout the modern period, and that continues even today, in our "postmodern" culture.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
From my daily devotional...
I subscribe to a daily devotional email called The Upper Room. Today's was especially timely and profound, and I want to share it with all of you:
"I read again in the gospel of John the interesting conversation between Mary Magdalene and Jesus [after his resurrection]. Jesus tells Mary, "Don't hold on to me!" This is deeply significant. Often, we try to hold on to God in various ways -- through our theologies or our positions on issues. We continue to imagine that we are in charge, that we can keep God near by holding our position. But this limits God, at least in our lives.
Resurrection faith relinquishes the desire to control God. Instead of trying to hold on to God, define God, keep God in a box, we are asked to let go and allow God to hold on to us. Doing this is a huge step of faith. But Jesus reminds us that the life we seek is found in a life of surrender to God.
O God, help us let go of our desire to control our lives and to define who you are and limit what you can do. Please hold on to us, especially in our uncertainty. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen."
"I read again in the gospel of John the interesting conversation between Mary Magdalene and Jesus [after his resurrection]. Jesus tells Mary, "Don't hold on to me!" This is deeply significant. Often, we try to hold on to God in various ways -- through our theologies or our positions on issues. We continue to imagine that we are in charge, that we can keep God near by holding our position. But this limits God, at least in our lives.
Resurrection faith relinquishes the desire to control God. Instead of trying to hold on to God, define God, keep God in a box, we are asked to let go and allow God to hold on to us. Doing this is a huge step of faith. But Jesus reminds us that the life we seek is found in a life of surrender to God.
O God, help us let go of our desire to control our lives and to define who you are and limit what you can do. Please hold on to us, especially in our uncertainty. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen."
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
more from Westphal...
"[T]he God of theism is personal, while the God of pantheism is impersonal. But if theistic discourse is to 'cash in' on this difference, so that it makes a difference, it will have to keep impersonal ('metaphysical') categories from becoming the tail that wags the dog. While recognizing that they point to important truth, it is crucial also to recognize that they point beyond themselves to personal ('moral') categories that are more nearly adequate to their intended referent."
In other words, if all you have is a God determined by metaphysical attributes (omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc), you're missing a major portion of the Gospel.
In other words, if all you have is a God determined by metaphysical attributes (omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc), you're missing a major portion of the Gospel.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Haiti...
Hello, everyone -- As you may know, I grew up in Haiti, as a missionary kid. My family is all back in the US now, but I still know many people who have family/friends there, and I ask for your prayers to cover the country and the people during this terrible time.
Please also consider donating to assist with the relief efforts in the face of this tragedy. The International Red Cross, World Vision, and Compassion International are great places to start. Thanks.
Please also consider donating to assist with the relief efforts in the face of this tragedy. The International Red Cross, World Vision, and Compassion International are great places to start. Thanks.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Westphal on Aquinas' critique of "onto-theology"...
Admittedly, there is an anachronism here, but Westphal (in Transcendence and Self-Transcendence) argues that theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas actually provide precursors to the type of argument that becomes the critique of onto-theology in Heidegger, etc. Essentially the critique follows a Kantian path, rather than a Spinozan or Hegelian one. It asserts that no systematic knowledge can be sufficient to establishing a full understanding of the divine. No matter how far it takes us, such a system will always lack more than it gains. Further, this insufficiency also affects our knowledge of other created things. Here is how Westphal describes Aquinas' take on the problem:
"God, in knowing the divine essence, knows all created beings, which participate, however weakly, in that essence. Not knowing the divine essence, we do not know things in this way. We do not know the perfections they imperfectly embody. Once again, human "knowledge" is secondary and human "truth" second-rate...
It is not just that God's knowledge, by contrast with ours, is creative [N.B. - Humans clearly have a creative element to our knowledge.]. We are not defined, strictly speaking, as rational animals but as created rational animals. A paradox emerges from the fact that createdness belongs to the essence of finite things. This fact is what makes them intelligible to us... At the same time, their createdness makes them incomprehensible.
For Aquinas 'it is part of the very nature of things that their knowability cannot be wholly exhausted by any finite intellect, because these things are creatures, which means that the very element which makes them capable of being known must necessarily be at the same time the reason why things are unfathomable.' This is not a quantitative deficiency... Aquinas is talking about our grasp of the essence of things."
"God, in knowing the divine essence, knows all created beings, which participate, however weakly, in that essence. Not knowing the divine essence, we do not know things in this way. We do not know the perfections they imperfectly embody. Once again, human "knowledge" is secondary and human "truth" second-rate...
It is not just that God's knowledge, by contrast with ours, is creative [N.B. - Humans clearly have a creative element to our knowledge.]. We are not defined, strictly speaking, as rational animals but as created rational animals. A paradox emerges from the fact that createdness belongs to the essence of finite things. This fact is what makes them intelligible to us... At the same time, their createdness makes them incomprehensible.
For Aquinas 'it is part of the very nature of things that their knowability cannot be wholly exhausted by any finite intellect, because these things are creatures, which means that the very element which makes them capable of being known must necessarily be at the same time the reason why things are unfathomable.' This is not a quantitative deficiency... Aquinas is talking about our grasp of the essence of things."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)